In the latest scrutiny over the biggest modern gaming controversy, lootboxes, the United Kingdom's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee has called both Epic Games and Electronic Arts into Parliament in order to discern whether lootboxes should be outlawed. With both companies publishing some of the largest video game franchises that include lootboxes as a major mechanic--Fortnite and FIFA, respectively--the Committee has begun an investigation into whether lootboxes are harming consumers. During the meeting, which was held on June 19th, Scotland's National Party MP claimed that studies and evidence showed that lootboxes have a close link to gambling. In response, EA's Vice President of Legal Affairs, Kerry Hopkins, made a few comments in the defense of lootboxes in video games, saying, "We don't call them lootboxes. They are instead referred to as surprise mechanics."

Hopkins continued her statement by stating the following, "We do agree with the UK gambling commission, the Australian gambling commission, and many other gambling commissions that they aren’t gambling, and we also disagree that there’s evidence that shows it leads to gambling. Instead, we think it’s like many other products that people enjoy in a healthy way, and like the element of surprise."

In attempts to further explain EA's stance on preventing lootboxes from being considered gambling, especially towards minors, Hopkins then said "People enjoy surprises, it's been a part of toys for years, like in Kinder Eggs or Hatchimals. [...] Lootboxes are actually quite ethical and quite fun, quite enjoyable to people".

Regardless of EA's own stance on the subject, it appears that smaller European countries do not agree, with Belgium and the Netherlands having outlawed lootboxes, resulting in the removal of those elements from their Belgian and Dutch releases, such as Blizzard and 2K removing the option to pay real money for lootboxes in Overwatch and NBA 2K18. Even in the United States, the Senate has put up a bill that, should it manage to be passed, would also ban pay-to-win microtransactions.

Source

 

[SG854]

I'm very familiar with the controversy and I've addressed all the criticism levied against lootboxes. I know how those "inquiries" look like and I put zero trust in the government making an accurate assessment regarding the "safety" of these mechanics. To be fair though, I put very little trust in the government in general, so it's not unusual for me. Opposing any form of limitations of the free market or restricting the access of consumers to goods comes pre-packaged with my ideology. I am instantaneously suspicious of any attempts to restrict people's ability to spend their own money, including in manners that are self-destructive.

You should scroll back up and read the post again, I don't think you read it quite right. Try again. I never said anything of the sort.

Hint: I specifically said that lootbox mechanics do not constitute gambling and explained why. You would know that if you actually read what I wrote instead of skimming through the post.

Edit: Let's use our "intelligence" instead of "belief" and supplement what we know with a handy definition from Wikipedia:
So, as I said earlier, lootboxes do not qualify as there is no monetary or material gain to be had, there is no risk as every lootbox contains a reward (making the outcome certain - you get a random reward every time) and there is no wager. Only the "prize" itself is random (if you can even call it a "prize" since you're not "winning" at a game of chance) but it's always there. Lootboxes may be addictive in an out of themselves, but they do not fulfil the game theory model of gambling, not even close. Not every action with a random reward or outcome can be considered gambling - you need to have something to win and something to lose. If you can't lose, you're not taking a risk. If you can't lose, you also can't win - you de facto get the "prize", you're only uncertain of what it is. Don't accuse others of ignorance when you yourself ignored everything they've said. As it stands, a lootbox is exactly what it says on the tin - it's a digital "container" with a randomised item. Calling it "gambling" is muddying the waters. We can discuss whether it's an addictive and habit-forming activity, but that's a different discussion.

If people really care about the kids being addicted then they would ban video games.

They are making Video Game addiction a mental disorder. Not everyone who gambles becomes addicted to gambling, not everyone who plays video games becomes addicted, but ban them to protect the people that do.

How many people you think really care enough about protecting kids that they would ban video games to stop them from having a chance of becoming addicted so that it won’t interfere with school and life.




People talk about the science, what about the psychology of game addiction. Spend 13 or more hrs a week your brain releases dopamine that triggers the reward part of the brain. Sparingly gambling and video games aren’t bad, but ban them so that kids won’t have a chance to over do it and become addicted, we need to protect them. Kids have high addictive personalities right? Or is it up to the parents to limit loot box purchases (made on their cards) and limit video game playing time.

How many people you think will be consistent and fight and protest to ban games? They care about the kids right? That’s what they’re screaming about all the time. No but not my games. I’m willing to sacrifice the kids so that you won’t take away my video games. Do they even care about protecting the kids? Or are they just using kids for themselves and their own wants, especially people that don’t have any to ban something that is totally avoidable by not purchasing.

 

[Megadriver94]

Not surprising to see the two worst companies in gaming defending this garbage. EA relies on profits from people getting addicted to the gambling mechanics in FIFA, and Epic relies on profits from kids stealing their parents' credit cards to get Fortnite cosmetics.

I agree on EA. Not sure as to whether post-2007 Activision or current-year Epic games is the other worse one though...

 

[Megadriver94]

If people really care about the kids being addicted then they would ban video games.

They are making Video Game addiction a mental disorder. Not everyone who gambles becomes addicted to gambling, not everyone who plays video games becomes addicted, but ban them to protect the people that do.

How many people you think really care enough about protecting kids that they would ban video games to stop them from having a chance of becoming addicted so that it won’t interfere with school and life.




People talk about the science, what about the psychology of game addiction. Spend 13 or more hrs a week your brain releases dopamine that triggers the reward part of the brain. Sparingly gambling and video games aren’t bad, but ban them so that kids won’t have a chance to over do it and become addicted, we need to protect them. Kids have high addictive personalities right? Or is it up to the parents to limit loot box purchases (made on their cards) and limit video game playing time.

How many people you think will be consistent and fight and protest to ban games? They care about the kids right? That’s what they’re screaming about all the time. No but not my games. I’m willing to sacrifice the kids so that you won’t take away my video games. Do they even care about protecting the kids? Or are they just using kids for themselves and their own wants, especially people that don’t have any to ban something that is totally avoidable by not purchasing.

>Muh KIDS!
OH PLEASE, SOD OFF with your boneheaded mentality of "ban video games and gambling because kids could get hooked" Kids indeed are quite impressionable more than both adults and teenagers, but why should their safety and security be a higher priority than free speech and expression? Lootboxes are indeed a predatory thing, You sound like either a bottom of the barrel Republican who wants to ban games that contain content that offends them and their personal beliefs, or a hard line Democrat who believes that national gun control laws will solve crime rates. WRONG! Criminals will still be able to murder and stick up people either via getting guns from under the table aka illegally from the black market, or using knifes and clubs instead. Plus, A number of Islamic countries, as well as states in both Pakistan and India have already banned games such as PUBG, their respective gov'ts thinking that it will solve what they see as being inherently bad. SG854, its time for you to sit in the dummy corner.
Also, The WHO is corrupt in a number of areas just as the EU is

 

[SG854]

>Muh KIDS!
OH PLEASE, SOD OFF with your boneheaded mentality of "ban video games and gambling because kids could get hooked" Kids indeed are quite impressionable more than both adults and teenagers, but why should their safety and security be a higher priority than free speech and expression? Lootboxes are indeed a predatory thing, You sound like either a bottom of the barrel Republican who wants to ban games that contain content that offends them and their personal beliefs, or a hard line Democrat who believes that national gun control laws will solve crime rates. WRONG! Criminals will still be able to murder and stick up people either via getting guns from under the table aka illegally from the black market, or using knifes and clubs instead. Plus, A number of Islamic countries, as well as states in both Pakistan and India have already banned games such as PUBG, their respective gov'ts thinking that it will solve what they see as being inherently bad. SG854, its time for you to sit in the dummy corner.
Also, The WHO is corrupt in a number of areas just as the EU is

I was pointing out inconsistencies in people arguments. My post is not what I think what should happen to Loot Boxes. It’s saying either if you want to ban loot boxes then also fight to ban Video Games. Or don’t ban either and it should be up to the parents to limit these things and not government, and people should have freedom to purchase what they want.


My last paragraph is asking if they actually care about the kids or if they are just using them as part of the argument to try to ban loot boxes because they themselves don’t like loot boxes. Basically hiding behind muh kidz for their own wants, supposedly wanting to protect them from things that can be addicting, but at the same time not ban video games. So if they ban one thing and not the other do they actually want to protect them or are they just using Kids as a tool for their arguments against loot boxes.

 

[Foxi4]

I was pointing out inconsistencies in people arguments. My post is not what I think what should happen to Loot Boxes. It’s saying either if you want to ban loot boxes then also fight to ban Video Games. Or don’t ban either and it should be up to the parents to limit these things and not government, and people should have freedom to purchase what they want.


My last paragraph is asking if they actually care about the kids or if they are just using them as part of the argument to try to ban loot boxes because they themselves don’t like loot boxes. Basically hiding behind muh kidz for their own wants, supposedly wanting to protect them from things that can be addicting, but at the same time not ban video games. So if they ban one thing and not the other do they actually want to protect them or are they just using Kids as a tool for their arguments against loot boxes.

As far as I'm concerned, it's an argument that's effectively based on greed. Nobody argues about the use of RNG loot in games, the random nature of the rewards is not the issue, it's been an industry staple since the likes of Diablo entered the scene. These crates cost money, so they're automatically "bad". The other aspect of it is the conflation of Pay2Win schemes and cosmetics, the former being something we should vehemently protest, the latter being something that's effectively inconsequential. I don't think I can treat supposed worries regarding addiction seriously when they come from people who see nothing wrong with clocking triple-digits in their favourite video games. I can understand the sentiment, we don't want other people to grab that RNG lever and pull at it all day long at their own peril, but I also don't think it's any of our business if that's what they want to do with their lives and money. Ultimately lootboxes are optional and the best way to protest them is to stop buying games that include them - that's a principled stance. Using the long arm of the government to restrict a mechanic someone doesn't like while still buying the game is hypocritical. If you truly don't want to see lootboxes in video games, stop buying them, and stop buying games that feature them, it's that simple. Video game publishers take note of that, and all the evidence I need is the Battlefront 2 fiasco which resulted in a temporary removal of in-game purchases altogether, followed shortly by a rework of the store to only include cosmetic upgrades. Complaining about sonething on the Internet is good, but voting with your wallet is better. You will never fully eliminate this sort of thing, but you can make it better without affecting smaller productions that rely on microtransactions in order to even exist, especially in the F2P/Mobile sector. Hitting the drum too hard can only result in publishers withdrawing from the affected markets, just like Nintendo did recently.

 

[SG854]

These crates cost money, so they're automatically "bad". The other aspect of it is the conflation of Pay2Win schemes and cosmetics, the former being something we should vehemently protest, the latter being something that's effectively inconsequential. I don't think I can treat supposed worries regarding addiction seriously when they come from people who see nothing wrong with clocking triple-digits in their favourite video games. I can understand the sentiment, we don't want other people to grab that RNG lever and pull at it all day long at their own peril, but I also don't think it's any of our business if that's what they want to do with their lives and money.

Then that would make it a money issue and not a I’m worried about kids getting addicted issue they keep huffing and puffing about. Because there’s no consistency.

Apparently letting kids engage in these things will increase chances of them becoming addicted. So ban it to protect them from addiction ever happening is the argument being presented right. Letting them scratch a lotto ticket, or playing poker even with cents instead of dollars, or even making bets on sports teams or whatever. We must protect them from ever being exposed should also apply to video games too right?

When the parents money is involved, aw hell no. They ain’t gunna waste my money. But when RNGing (RPG’s are filled with them), Randomized elements, brain dopamine, and possible addiction to video games (now considered a mental health disorder), screw the kids they ain’t gunna take away my video games. You can ban addictive loot boxes but not my addictive video games. The psychology right? Do you not understand addiction?


Makes it really seem like kids are just their tools for political manipulation for themselves to sway the argument in their favor. Will someone please think of the children! They did the same thing when they tried to ban violent video games. I just don’t feel the need to fight to change law personally because it’s just never been a problem for me since I never bought a single loot box ever. I think they are stupid and a waste of money.

 

[Tiger21820]

It's absolutely your fault for playing a crooked game in the first place. Don't play games with lootboxes if you don't like them.

I retract my last statement.